Exactly. It's not like he has copyright for things posted to an internal board. His leaked, and reflected badly on the company. He also did what the company said he did. They don't need to specify all the reasons for firing.

Is he suing because his specific opinions were discriminated against or because he feels discriminated because he is a conservative?

It's a class action lawsuit on behalf of all employees of Google who’ve been discriminated against due to their “perceived conservative political views by Google,” due to “their male gender by Google” and “due to their Caucasian race by Google.”

That makes it sounds like he's just throwing everything and the kitchen sink into the lawsuit and hoping something sticks.

Yes, but a) that's a sufficiently standard legal tactic that one can't read much into it, and b) there is at least some material support provided for each claim. For instance:

Quote:

A perfect example of Google’s relaxed attitude toward discrimination against Caucasians and males is seen in Burchett’s G+ posts. As seen below, Burchett states that in the promotions committee which she serves on where she helps decide which T5 Engineers are promoted to the T6 level, she stated, “2/4 committee members were women. Yay! 4/4 committee members were white. Boo! 12/15 candidates were white men. Boo!”

That makes it sounds like he's just throwing everything and the kitchen sink into the lawsuit and hoping something sticks.

Yes, but a) that's a sufficiently standard legal tactic that one can't read much into it, and b) there is at least some material support provided for each claim. For instance:

Quote:

A perfect example of Google’s relaxed attitude toward discrimination against Caucasians and males is seen in Burchett’s G+ posts. As seen below, Burchett states that in the promotions committee which she serves on where she helps decide which T5 Engineers are promoted to the T6 level, she stated, “2/4 committee members were women. Yay! 4/4 committee members were white. Boo! 12/15 candidates were white men. Boo!”

That's... not a good look.

Why isn’t it a good look? It’s a complaint that women are under-represented on the committee, and that the vast majority of candidates were both white AND male. It’s a valid complaint.

Is he suing because his specific opinions were discriminated against or because he feels discriminated because he is a conservative?

It's a class action lawsuit on behalf of all employees of Google who’ve been discriminated against due to their “perceived conservative political views by Google,” due to “their male gender by Google” and “due to their Caucasian race by Google.”

A class action on behalf of a group that may have only one member? What does it take to get certified as a class action?

Why isn’t it a good look? It’s a complaint that women are under-represented on the committee, and that the vast majority of candidates were both white AND male. It’s a valid complaint.

It's literally booing or cheering the success of individuals based on their race/gender. If you really can't see the problem here, swap in any other race/gender and read the paragraph again. That's how bad this looks to anyone who hasn't internalized a bunch of highly questionable notions put forth by the modern social justice movement (i.e. most people).

Bullshit. Being on a promotion committee is not just a success, it's an indication of the company's priority and awareness.

You are, apparently without the slightest awareness, arguing from a bunch of unstated premises that are not commonly held outside of the bubble of the social justice movement. For instance, when you say an all-white committee is "an indication of the company's priority and awareness," you're implying the racial makeup of the committee is a consequence of either conscious or unconscious bias, and is consequently a problem that demands active redress. Outside of the social justice movement, most people wouldn't make that assumption and would likely be confused why the race of the committee members should matter.

Also, showing that the vast majority of the prospects for promotion are not typical of the general population AND your own workforce is also a valid complaint.

Great, so frame that concern in terms of what can be done to find more high-quality minority candidates. Booing white men is not required.

You do realize that the law doesn't actually reflect the notion that only structural racism/sexism count, so discrimination against white men is fine, yes? I've seen some confusion on this point over the last few days on social media.

Is he suing because his specific opinions were discriminated against or because he feels discriminated because he is a conservative?

It's a class action lawsuit on behalf of all employees of Google who’ve been discriminated against due to their “perceived conservative political views by Google,” due to “their male gender by Google” and “due to their Caucasian race by Google.”

A class action on behalf of a group that may have only one member? What does it take to get certified as a class action?

Looking up at various legal resources there is no minimum. The standard comes down to if the judge in the case decides that there are so many plaintiffs that it is not practical to let each have their own trial.

It also seems that these don't have to be the actual number of people who put their name to the suit, but potential victims. IE if a company sells 6 million cars that cause cripple injuries, a small or even one person could sue and make it a class action suit. However I'm not 100% sure on this part.

20 seems to be the smallest size of potential victims that most courts will accept.

You do realize that the law doesn't actually reflect the notion that only structural racism/sexism count, so discrimination against white men is fine, yes? I've seen some confusion on this point over the last few days on social media.

I imagine you are seeing that on social media because of the number of times "You can't be racist against white people or sexist against men in the US because racism/sexism requires power."

Actually I think the short hand version is Racism/Sexism = Prejudice + Power.

While that might be fine to claim in a classroom, that's not actually how the law works in the US.

It’s wspecially silly in this case where the white men are the ones up for promotion. It’s an argument divorced from facts.

If 12/15 people up for promotion had been black women and someone were booing this, you obviously wouldn't be arguing this was OK because the person doing the booing was just objecting to fact that the demographics of the candidate pool didn't represent the population demographics. You certainly wouldn't be chiding people who objected to the booing on the basis that, since black women were the ones up for promotion, such objections where "divorced from facts." You would, instead, be objecting yourself, calling out the boos as obvious racism. Rightly so.

What I'm trying to get you to think about is that the only reason you're reacting differently here is that you've bought into an understanding of racism/sexism (StarSeeker summarized it better than I have) that may be taken for granted in your social circles, but that is not the mainstream understanding of those phenomena and is not reflected in anti-discrimination law.

If 12/15 people up for promotion had been black women and someone were booing this, you obviously wouldn't be arguing this was OK because the person doing the booing was just objecting to fact that the demographics of the candidate pool didn't represent the population demographics.

We're all well aware of how easy it is for you to pull counterfactual scenarios out of your ass. I think far more likely if 12/15 people up for promotion had been black women and Damore had put that in the lawsuit, they'd be in hiding because the alt right would have doxxed them by now. There's an asymmetry here I don't think you're acknowledging.

What I'm trying to get you to think about is that the only reason you're reacting differently here is that you've bought into an understanding of racism/sexism (StarSeeker summarized it better than I have) that may be taken for granted in your social circles, but that is not the mainstream understanding of those phenomena and is not reflected in anti-discrimination law.

Not clear to me how your appeal to popular opinion works here since popular opinion these days includes unabashed white supremacism. Also not clear to me what about anti-discrimination law you are referring to. It would also be helpful to compare it to discrimination lawsuits that have actually succeeded. It's true that something can be not a good look to arbitrarily racist observers but actually winning a discrimination case is extremely difficult, and there's a lot of better cases with far more sympathetic plaintiffs that have failed.

Even if we subscribe to the zero sum philosophy favored by white supremacists Google still has a clear interest in trying to get better diversity among promotions simply because it's blameless human nature to perceive accomplishments from people outside the norm as being worse. Hence Google loses top performers because they're unable to promote them. Many far more conservative companies understand that explicit policies are required to counter this phenomena.

There's been discrimination cases with a far stronger pattern of facts to support racial discrimination leading to denied promotions etc that have failed, but it doesn't look like Damore has that pattern of facts here since he was in fact promoted. The "boo" comment doesn't seem to be connected to anyone in particular being denied a promotion.

We're all well aware of how easy it is for you to pull counterfactual scenarios out of your ass. I think far more likely if 12/15 people up for promotion had been black women and Damore had put that in the lawsuit, they'd be in hiding because the alt right would have doxxed them by now. There's an asymmetry here I don't think you're acknowledging.

Also not clear to me what about anti-discrimination law you are referring to.

When the law says it's illegal to discriminate against someone for being a member of protected class, and includes race and gender as protected classes, it does not mean "except white people and men." The category "white man" is just as protected as, say, the category "black woman." If you e.g. refuse to hire someone for being a member of either category, these are identical acts in the eyes of the law.

It would also be helpful to compare it to discrimination lawsuits that have actually succeeded. It's true that something can be not a good look to arbitrarily racist observers but actually winning a discrimination case is extremely difficult, and there's a lot of better cases with far more sympathetic plaintiffs that have failed.

My point here isn't to weigh in on the legal merits of Damore's lawsuit. I don't know know enough about California employment law to really do so. I mention the law's opinion on this issue as another line of evidence that the "racism/sexism = prejudice + power" definition is not taken for granted by society at large, which I'm pointing out because papadage asked a question which seems to imply legitimate obliviousness to this.

Google still has a clear interest in trying to get better diversity among promotions simply because it's blameless human nature to perceive accomplishments from people outside the norm as being worse. Hence Google loses top performers because they're unable to promote them. Many far more conservative companies understand that explicit policies are required to counter this phenomena.

I wasn't really arguing the merits of such policies in this particular exchange, and obviously that's a rather large topic. But in summary, I'm really rather conflicted about the whole thing. I understand the idea of trying to adopt explicit policy to offset implicit bias, and this doesn't strike me as inherently immoral, but in practice we don't seem to be able to reliably confirm the existence or effect size of implicit bias, and there's no firm basis for a belief that every subpopulation (every industry, every company, every team and level of the hierarchy within a company, etc.) would demographically mirror the national population absent bias, so it's hard to know where to apply such corrections and at what magnitudes.

There's been discrimination cases with a far stronger pattern of facts to support racial discrimination leading to denied promotions etc that have failed, but it doesn't look like Damore has that pattern of facts here since he was in fact promoted. The "boo" comment doesn't seem to be connected to anyone in particular being denied a promotion.

I'm not citing this to argue Damore will prevail in court, I'm citing it to suggest there's something screwy going on at Google.

When the law says it's illegal to discriminate against someone for being a member of protected class, and includes race and gender as protected classes, it does not mean "except white people and men." The category "white man" is just as protected as, say, the category "black woman." If you e.g. refuse to hire someone for being a member of either category, these are identical acts in the eyes of the law.

Keep in mind California, where the case is being argued, also includes political affiliation or activities as part of their protected classes. They have in fact one of the larger lists in the country of things their state protects above and beyond the Federal List of Protected Classes.

After they shut down arguments between employees, they're still going to have diversity training. I think Damore would see that as picking a side.

The broader view is of course that a businesses can get away with much more in terms of wage discrimination etc when they create a pro-diversity facade. Hence Damore is a problem both for slightly wiser people of like mind as well as everyone else.

I think you hit nail on the head... I couldn't quite pin down why I feel that conservative higher-ups would have, likely, even less tolerance for Damore than liberals, and this is probably a good part of why.

In the US as of recently, the political left/right axis turned orthogonal to the conservative axis or for that matter the big government interventionism axis. It may be even beyond orthogonal and moving towards anti-parallel. On the right you have a lot of radical reactionaries, you have big government anti-business anti-capitalist interventionist policies like the border wall and tariffs, and so on. New untested shit being proposed when everything worked just fine before.

We're all well aware of how easy it is for you to pull counterfactual scenarios out of your ass. I think far more likely if 12/15 people up for promotion had been black women and Damore had put that in the lawsuit, they'd be in hiding because the alt right would have doxxed them by now. There's an asymmetry here I don't think you're acknowledging.

This seems entirely non-responsive.

Not so much responsive as an aside to chide you for arguing against a made up scenario that didn't happen as opposed to a real scenario that did. It is incorrect to suggest the entirety of a post must within the narrow bounds of what you define as responsive, I may exceed those bounds when I deem appropriate when I consider incorrect bounds to be part of your error. We can't discard context to imagine a different scenario because context is part of the problem. This is what I mean by asymmetry.

When the law says it's illegal to discriminate against someone for being a member of protected class, and includes race and gender as protected classes, it does not mean "except white people and men." The category "white man" is just as protected as, say, the category "black woman." If you e.g. refuse to hire someone for being a member of either category, these are identical acts in the eyes of the law.

I would agree refusing to hire someone due to a protected class would be against the law, I'm just struggling to see the relationship to anything relevant to the thread. You call the "boo" comment "not a good look" and you call it material support for the claim, but it's not saying "boo" that's illegal. Talking about discrimination in hiring etc does not support the view that saying "boo" is illegal. It's the actual discrimination in hiring etc that's the problem and Damore was in fact hired. Pretty sure we all agree on that. He was also recently promoted.

Hence I tend to agree with the view this is more of a maximum nuisance strategy in the lawsuit, he seeks to create a miasma of alt right talking points more than he seeks to establish a clear pattern of facts that discrimination actually occurred. The "it might not be true but it makes a good point" approach. He can't create a clear causal link for anyone in particular, least of all himself, but he's hoping he'll get somewhere if he just shotguns a bunch of screenshots he's been hoarding over the years.

See, I reject that zero-sum philosophy, but booing the promotion of white men sure make its look like the author of that message accepts it.

I took that to mean the person didn't think they were doing enough to help minority candidates through the promotion process. I offer that interpretation having worked in bay area tech since 2011, and while I don't work at Google, I have interviewed there and received a job offer (I declined). Hence I do have a bit of experience with the communication style relevant for that post. For Damore to interpret it the way you suggest gives me the impression he spends a lot of time actively looking for ways to be offended.

It's also interesting to note that the "boo" comment, which is offhand and ambiguous with a more generous interpretation available, gets the most dire interpretation possible, whereas when Damore wrote up a 10 page memo, you bent over backwards to give it the most generous possible interpretation.

I'm not citing this to argue Damore will prevail in court, I'm citing it to suggest there's something screwy going on at Google.

After going over the complaint the main issue I see is that Google is useless at dealing with harassment, which was already my impression from problems numerous women and minorities have had working there. Damore squanders this opportunity for personal growth however. When subjected to a taste of what others have to deal with all the time no matter where they work, he interprets it as vast conspiracy specifically against white men, the only group so consistently exempt from this treatment that it is even possible for them to hold illusions that it doesn't happen to anyone else.

I would agree refusing to hire someone due to a protected class would be against the law, I'm just struggling to see the relationship to anything relevant to the thread. You call the "boo" comment "not a good look" and you call it material support for the claim, but it's not saying "boo" that's illegal. Talking about discrimination in hiring etc does not support the view that saying "boo" is illegal. It's the actual discrimination in hiring etc that's the problem and Damore was in fact hired. Pretty sure we all agree on that. He was also recently promoted.

These types of claims are not just limited to being hired.

Hostile Work Environment claims don't have to result in somebody not being promoted or hired. They literally are about the condition of people who have already been hired, but are being discriminated against in the day to day operations of the business.

You can't hand wave away those types of claims by saying "You were hired weren't you? Nothing to see here!"

Note: I'm not saying he has a valid case, just it can't be dismissed by saying "He was hired, so clearly he's got nothing to complain about."

Hostile Work Environment is part of Discrimination claims.

Add on: That said he was fired, which is another grounds you can use to file a Discrimination case. He's basically claiming he was fired because of a protected status, which is illegal.

It's pretty difficult to claim a hostile work environment against white males in a company largely run by white males who are denying that such occurs.

As far as hostile environment for political activists... again, what didn't happen was someone who is known to be republican but was behaving in a professional manner, accusing Google of hostile work environment to republicans. Instead you have a person that engages in grossly unprofessional behaviour (the so called "feedback" which when it doesn't go anywhere via proper channels, is shown widely to co-workers) and makes the work environment hostile to someone else and gets fired for it, arguing that the work environment was hostile to people who make work environment hostile in a particular way and it's somehow discriminatory.

Instead you have a person that engages in grossly unprofessional behaviour (the so called "feedback" which when it doesn't go anywhere via proper channels, is shown widely to co-workers

His claim was that the person running the training *asked* him to post his issues on a company feed back area specifically set up for feedback. That's about as proper channels as you can get.

Assuming his filing is accurate, which I'm not, but it's what we have to talk about *now*.

At this point I'm not sure who leaked it when, but the people who leaked it to *everybody* were people who didn't like it.

Add on: In my personal opinion both he and Google violated some of my basic don't do this unless you want to have a bad day rules.

1. Don't talk about Politics at work.2. Don't talk about Religion at work.3. Don't talk about Sex at work.4. If you are the Boss, don't encourage your employees to talk about any of the first 3 points.

Final Add on, sorry.

Keep in mind Google seemed to be fine with both actions because neither got him reprimanded or fired for. It wasn't until after somebody posted his stuff to the public that he got fired for. So it doesn't look like he was fired for posting information to the wrong forum or some sort of violating posting guide lines or even causing internal hostile work problems for Google. That seems to be invented after the fact to justify the actions.

He was fired because he made Google look bad, which is fine, unless the reason that he made Google look bad was because of a protected class.

Example of how that could be a problem. Say you work an an authentic Mexican Restaurant as a cook. You are however Chinese. Nobody has a problem with that until another cook gets mad, takes a picture of you and posts it to social media. The restaurant gets negative feedback for not having a Hispanic cook and so they fire you. That's a problem.

Not so much responsive as an aside to chide you for arguing against a made up scenario that didn't happen as opposed to a real scenario that did. It is incorrect to suggest the entirety of a post must within the narrow bounds of what you define as responsive, I may exceed those bounds when I deem appropriate when I consider incorrect bounds to be part of your error. We can't discard context to imagine a different scenario because context is part of the problem. This is what I mean by asymmetry.

It's virtually impossible to tease apart what people believe and why they believe it without counterfactuals. I find it difficult to sustain a charitable interpretation of the resistance I encounter to engaging with them in the context of discussions of social justice issues.

Your hypothetical asymmetry — that if the candidates were black women and their names were made public, they'd have been harassed, where white men wouldn't be — doesn't seem relevant to any point I was making.

Views held by POTUS and a large part of the majority party as a matter of definition not fringe.

Describing the views of Trump or a large part of the Republican Party as "white supremacism" is diluting the meaning of that term to near meaninglessness. Two years ago, this term referred to groups that believed in the biological superiority of "the white race" and wanted to drive non-whites out of the country or establish some apartheid-like system. Now it seems to be a generic synonym for "racist."

I would agree refusing to hire someone due to a protected class would be against the law, I'm just struggling to see the relationship to anything relevant to the thread. You call the "boo" comment "not a good look" and you call it material support for the claim, but it's not saying "boo" that's illegal. Talking about discrimination in hiring etc does not support the view that saying "boo" is illegal. It's the actual discrimination in hiring etc that's the problem and Damore was in fact hired. Pretty sure we all agree on that. He was also recently promoted.

Hence I tend to agree with the view this is more of a maximum nuisance strategy in the lawsuit, he seeks to create a miasma of alt right talking points more than he seeks to establish a clear pattern of facts that discrimination actually occurred. The "it might not be true but it makes a good point" approach. He can't create a clear causal link for anyone in particular, least of all himself, but he's hoping he'll get somewhere if he just shotguns a bunch of screenshots he's been hoarding over the years.

I took that to mean the person didn't think they were doing enough to help minority candidates through the promotion process. I offer that interpretation having worked in bay area tech since 2011, and while I don't work at Google, I have interviewed there and received a job offer (I declined). Hence I do have a bit of experience with the communication style relevant for that post. For Damore to interpret it the way you suggest gives me the impression he spends a lot of time actively looking for ways to be offended.

The person who made the "boo" comment sits on a promotions committee. Again, flip the race/gender around, and the problem is glaringly obvious. If you saw someone on a promotions committee booing the fact that there were too many black people and women in the candidate pool, you'd accuse them of being racist and misogynist, and you'd probably be right.

It's also interesting to note that the "boo" comment, which is offhand and ambiguous with a more generous interpretation available, gets the most dire interpretation possible, whereas when Damore wrote up a 10 page memo, you bent over backwards to give it the most generous possible interpretation.

My 'defense' of the Damore memo consisted almost entirely of pointing out that a) it literally didn't say some of the things people claimed it did, and b) some key claims that were being dismissed as bigotry were, in fact, supported by mainstream science.

After going over the complaint the main issue I see is that Google is useless at dealing with harassment, which was already my impression from problems numerous women and minorities have had working there. Damore squanders this opportunity for personal growth however. When subjected to a taste of what others have to deal with all the time no matter where they work, he interprets it as vast conspiracy specifically against white men, the only group so consistently exempt from this treatment that it is even possible for them to hold illusions that it doesn't happen to anyone else.

I don't really see a problem here. Damore's not undermining anyone else's ability to get justice. A lawsuit by a white guy who says he was discriminated against on the basis of race doesn't harm the prospects of a future a lawsuit by a black guy who says he was discriminated against on the basis of race. If a company has sufficiently lax policies, both claims could easily be true.

When the law says it's illegal to discriminate against someone for being a member of protected class, and includes race and gender as protected classes, it does not mean "except white people and men." The category "white man" is just as protected as, say, the category "black woman." If you e.g. refuse to hire someone for being a member of either category, these are identical acts in the eyes of the law.

Why do we have protected class laws at all?

The answer to that question is why your assertion that the law protects white men too is pointless.

When the law says it's illegal to discriminate against someone for being a member of protected class, and includes race and gender as protected classes, it does not mean "except white people and men." The category "white man" is just as protected as, say, the category "black woman." If you e.g. refuse to hire someone for being a member of either category, these are identical acts in the eyes of the law.

Keep in mind California, where the case is being argued, also includes political affiliation or activities as part of their protected classes. They have in fact one of the larger lists in the country of things their state protects above and beyond the Federal List of Protected Classes.

How is "conservatism" protected? It is neither an organization or an activity.

When the law says it's illegal to discriminate against someone for being a member of protected class, and includes race and gender as protected classes, it does not mean "except white people and men." The category "white man" is just as protected as, say, the category "black woman." If you e.g. refuse to hire someone for being a member of either category, these are identical acts in the eyes of the law.

Why do we have protected class laws at all?

The answer to that question is why your assertion that the law protects white men too is pointless.

Not pointless at all. If you had a company owned by a black person who purposefully stated that they will never hire white people no matter how qualified they are, they could and SHOULD be sued. That's discrimination and it's illegal.

When the law says it's illegal to discriminate against someone for being a member of protected class, and includes race and gender as protected classes, it does not mean "except white people and men." The category "white man" is just as protected as, say, the category "black woman." If you e.g. refuse to hire someone for being a member of either category, these are identical acts in the eyes of the law.

Keep in mind California, where the case is being argued, also includes political affiliation or activities as part of their protected classes. They have in fact one of the larger lists in the country of things their state protects above and beyond the Federal List of Protected Classes.

How is "conservatism" protected? It is neither an organization or an activity.

Are you saying that iding yourself as "Conservative" isn't a political affiliation?

When the law says it's illegal to discriminate against someone for being a member of protected class, and includes race and gender as protected classes, it does not mean "except white people and men." The category "white man" is just as protected as, say, the category "black woman." If you e.g. refuse to hire someone for being a member of either category, these are identical acts in the eyes of the law.

Why do we have protected class laws at all?

The answer to that question is why your assertion that the law protects white men too is pointless.

ZnU is correct. That is literally the law of the land: McDonald v Santa Fe, 1976 established that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects white people from discrimination on the basis of race.

I don't think that Damore will be able to establish that Google discriminates against white people, but if they are doing that, they are literally breaking the law, same as if they discriminate against asians, latinos, women, etc.

Again, that is the actual law that courts and judges operate from, as distinct from tumblr posts and Google internal message boards. You can't discriminate against people based on their race, whether they are white, black, whatever. Yes, white people tend to need this protection less than others.

Views held by POTUS and a large part of the majority party as a matter of definition not fringe.

Describing the views of Trump or a large part of the Republican Party as "white supremacism" is diluting the meaning of that term to near meaninglessness. Two years ago, this term referred to groups that believed in the biological superiority of "the white race" and wanted to drive non-whites out of the country or establish some apartheid-like system. Now it seems to be a generic synonym for "racist."

No, that's still what white supremacist means. I'm not diluting the term, I'm applying it to people that really hold that view, including Trump and a large part of the Republican party. If you want to unpack statements like "immigrants should come from Norway", start a thread, it would be a big tangent here. For the purpose of this thread, I will treat unabashed white supremacism as a mainstream view.

My 'defense' of the Damore memo consisted almost entirely of pointing out that a) it literally didn't say some of the things people claimed it did, and b) some key claims that were being dismissed as bigotry were, in fact, supported by mainstream science

I don't agree you accomplished either of those things, but the point here is you put a hell of a lot of effort into the attempt, as opposed to the "boo" comment, where you only acknowledge a highly negative interpretation when others are available.

If that's your reasoning process then there is an onus on you to ensure the counterfactual is actually representative. Failure to do this means you're making up "just so" stories from whole cloth.

Switching the races around is perfectly valid in figuring out where ideological consistency ends. One with a pedantically (for lack of a better term) anti-racist mindset could reasonably switch the races and acknowledge that they are both instances of racism. One with the mindset that it is impossible to be racist to white people can never see booing whites for being white as racist.

Quote:

I don't agree you accomplished either of those things, but the point here is you put a hell of a lot of effort into the attempt, as opposed to the "boo" comment, where you only acknowledge a highly negative interpretation when others are available.

This is a little funny, when disagreeing with someone for not taking a negative enough view on the memo that spawned the thread, when others were available.

When the law says it's illegal to discriminate against someone for being a member of protected class, and includes race and gender as protected classes, it does not mean "except white people and men." The category "white man" is just as protected as, say, the category "black woman." If you e.g. refuse to hire someone for being a member of either category, these are identical acts in the eyes of the law.

Keep in mind California, where the case is being argued, also includes political affiliation or activities as part of their protected classes. They have in fact one of the larger lists in the country of things their state protects above and beyond the Federal List of Protected Classes.

How is "conservatism" protected? It is neither an organization or an activity.

Are you saying that iding yourself as "Conservative" isn't a political affiliation?

I thought political affiliation meant membership in a party and conservatism was a political philosophy. Dead serious.